|
|
Post by Acumen on Feb 21, 2012 8:52:22 GMT
|
|
|
|
Post by jaybee on Feb 23, 2012 15:35:57 GMT
Difficult!
I hope I'd have called 'Dead Ball' immediately ... but ... having had time to consider it and trying to use Law 43 ... I'd like to think that I'd also give the batsman out on the basis (however mistaken) that my call came after the catch was made.
Following further study of the clip (after I'd written the above) it looks as if the umpire retracted his DB signal and the batsman then walked off so that's probably what was done. It looks to me as if that was a pretty good bit of umpiring.
Do we know what the ultimate decision was and - more importantly - how the bowler is?
|
|
Mike
Junior Contributor
Posts: 4
|
Post by Mike on Feb 24, 2012 21:52:04 GMT
|
|
|
|
Post by mrsingh on May 1, 2012 15:51:40 GMT
Well... I wouldn't have rescinded the 'dead ball' call.
|
|
|
|
Post by Reggie Duff on May 11, 2012 2:56:54 GMT
Well... I wouldn't have rescinded the 'dead ball' call. I think you'd be wrong then. The ball was called dead well after the catch was completed for a start, and then Law 23 only provides for the umpire calling dead ball if a "serious" injury to a player or umpire occurs. I think the umpire in this instance did everything perfectly. The bowler obviously wasn't seriously injured so there is no basis under the Laws for a call of Dead Ball. |
|
|
|
Post by jaybee on May 13, 2012 10:40:03 GMT
I agree with Reggie though for a different reason.
Once you've called dead ball you can't bring it back to 'life' and, in circumstances when a player's been hit, you have to act immediately to fulfil the umpire's duty of care to the player - even if you decide later that the injury wasn't as serious as it might have appeared.
However, having decided that the batsman was out (and therefore that the dismissal happened before the call of dead ball), the ball automatically became dead (Law 23.1(a)(iii)).
Following on from that the umpire was quite correct to withdraw his dead-ball signal. I'd give him top marks for his actions
|
|
|
|
Post by mrsinghIndia on May 22, 2012 14:50:29 GMT
My earlier statement is based on how I saw the situation in the clip.
I still think the call of 'dead ball' came at 0:20, a second before the catch was completed. The call was immediately repeated along with a signal. I could be wrong, though. (It is that close a thing)
But what is clear, indeed, is the principle that what has happened before the call shall be allowed to stand and and nothing after the call will.
I would, in such situations, apprehending serious injury and, perhaps, erring on the side of caution, invariably call 'dead ball'. Won't make an iota of difference if a later closer look proves the injury as not 'serious'.
One point, though. In any case why should the call be revoked at all, whether the batsman is given out or not.
|
|
